Around 4:30pm that day, Kanwal entered her uncle’s house located in village 104 South in the suburbs of Sargodha, minutes before a horrific crime took place. Kanwal’s husband Imran told the police that, at the entrance of the house, Kanwal, Imran and their children met her uncle’s neighbour Muhammed Waqas and Kanwal’s nine-year-old nephew.

According to Imran, Kanwal had asked Waqas what he was doing there. To which Waqas had replied that he was training the child to murder Kanwal because she had dishonoured her family by eloping with Imran.

A progress report provided by Police Station Saddar, Sargodha states, “According to Imran’s statement, Kanwal and Waqas exchanged hot words. Waqas then swiftly handed a 30 bore pistol to the child and, taking the child’s name, said, ‘Student, take your aim at Kanwal Parveen.’ The child took the weapon, aimed directly at Kanwal, pulled the trigger, and hit her in the middle of her forehead. She fell and we stood stunned, not knowing what to do. Then Waqas took the child’s hand and walked out of the house where a man called Ahsanallah (Chadho) was waiting with a motorcycle and the trio fled the crime scene.”

Kanwal died on the spot.

According to the progress report provided by the police, the child was arrested 10 days later. The police decided not to charge Ahsanallah and later released him.

“The child was taken into custody but he is now back with his parents,” says police Sub-Inspector Muhammad Abid, pointing out he was a minor. “He was released on bail after two months.”

Kanwal was killed by a nephew she had never met, as he was born after she had left for her husband’s house. The fatal shot that ended her life must have rung through her ears before piercing her body. If death gave her time, she would have seen an unfamiliar child standing with a gun, pointed at her — a child who had been trained for a whole year to commit this murder.

Najm-ul-Hassan was not even born when Kanwal Parveen exercised her right to make an independent decision and marry someone she liked.

However, the way the child reacted to Waqas’s command indicates that he had been completely brainwashed and was under the control of the older man. He has been desensitised — and dehumanised — to murder on command.

This isn’t the only shocking case of honor killing in Pakistan. Every week brings fresh news of wives strangled, daughters shot or sisters drowned for a perceived slight to family “honour”. Sometimes a single person is responsible; more often, a group of male family members are involved. The vast majority of the killers go unpunished. We live in a sick hypocrite society where we are fervent to thrash and rape a girl to quench our frustration but couldn’t allow her to marry a man of her own choice.

Diversions! They play a pivotal role in de-escalation of the current turmoil. Every ruling party or state actors use such tactics to ward off anything that may become a hiccup for them. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, Shia genocide is the easiest and most possible diversion that is used to mitigate the disorder. Ironically, the general public is less sensitive towards a bunch of slain Shias and the recurrence of such incidents has also decreased the psychological impact of such killings. For regional dialogues, for political diversions, for anti-Iran sentiments, for Arab aid or even for a political crisis, the easiest way out is to kill a bunch of Shias or leave them alone to be slaughtered by the religiously motivated Psychos.

For the vulnerable Shia Hazara community of Quetta, peace only comes in short periods of time during a reign of terror that spans decades, and continues unabated. Terror revisited the vulnerable religio-ethnic community yesterday when armed men kidnapped 11 coal miners in Mach area of Balochistan, took them to nearby mountains, and slaughtered them. Militants used kitchen knives to behead the poor miners. Since the attack, the relatives of those killed placed their coffins on a highway in Quetta and refused to bury the dead until the killers were apprehended and Khan came to meet them.Braving the biting cold, the mourners, including women and children, refused to leave or lay the miners’ bodies to rest until Prime Minister Imran visits them and the killers are brought to justice. while, the Prime Minister of Pakistan was insensitive and arrogant enough and kept them waiting for six days in the harsh cold weather with dead bodies placed on the road. moreover, during a speech he termed them blackmailers and refused to visit until they protesters bury the dead bodies of the victims.

Sadly, Hazaras are forced to live a life of fear. They have nowhere to hide from terrorists as their faces speak of their identity — in fact, their faith, which can be exploited easily to sow the seeds of discord and disrupt peace and harmony in the country.

The fanatical nihilism of terrorist attacks against Shia religious ceremonies — ceremonies which have been observed before the country’s founding — has become normalized and routine is a sign of the depths to which Pakistan has sunk in terms of sectarianism and social fragmentation over the past decade.

Shia Muslims within Pakistan have become a community under siege in recent years and are facing a situation which is increasingly being described by many Pakistanis as a slow-motion genocide.

Several hundred Pakistani Shias have been killed this year alone in increasingly high-profile attacks by extremist militants, including one incident caught on video in August in which passengers were forced off a bus in the Gilgit region and executed by armed militants who checked their victims’ ID cards before killing whomsoever they could identify as being Shia.

WikiLeaks cables released in 2009 described the extent of which this support has been facilitated: “Donors in Saudi Arabia as the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide… for groups aligned with Al-Qaida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.

The leaked report describes in detail the extent to which wealthy, conservative Gulf donors have sought to use Pakistan as a battlefront for their war against Iran — a war in which they see all Shias across the world as being legitimate targets for violence.

An estimated $100m per year has flowed from donors from the Gulf to fund extremist groups in Pakistan and spread sectarian ideology — a massive sum especially for a developing country such as Pakistan and one which has been increasingly successful in subverting the heterodox and tolerant Islamic tradition which has historically been prevalent in the subcontinent.

Despite these encouraging pronouncements, the horrifying scenes of murder which played out on Pakistani streets during this year’s Ashura commemorations are a stark reminder of how deeply embedded violently extremist religious attitudes have become within segments of Pakistani society in recent years.

Pakistani Shias increasingly face “sectarian cleansing” from the country if violence against them continues to accelerate, a fate which would be a tragic end to a community which for most of the Pakistan’s history has lived in communal harmony with majority Sunnis and others within Pakistan’s once-inclusive ethnic and religious tapestry.

There is growing realization within Pakistan that the cynical manipulation of the country by regional actors is leading to a potential existential crisis for the state. Shias make up a large percentage of the country’s population of 180 million and account for a significant proportion of the professional class which is vital to the nation’s continued viability. The state’s response towards this genocide remained indifferent as these militant groups and their leaders were occasionally allowed to hold anti Shia rallies during which their leaders openly threatened to kill the Shias. The provision of such leverages to these banned outfits clearly labels state’s response towards this genocide which is sowing a seed of mistrust and resentment among the oppressed Shias.

In 7 A.H., the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought a war against the Jews of Khyber, because they had broken a treaty with the Muslims. Some of their fortresses were taken; two or three were besieged. At last, they proposed a deal that their life, religion, honor would be safe, and they would leave their fortresses and land for the Muslims. The agreement was concluded. The Jews were allowed to work on the land on behalf of the Muslims, and the produce was shared between the Jews and the Muslims half and half.

According to the Quranic verse (8:41), one-fifth of the fortresses and land was given to the Holy Prophet as Khumus and the remaining four-fifths to the Muslims.

When the Jews of Fadak heard of the battle of Khyber and the resulting agreement, they began thinking about themselves. At the same time, a messenger came to them from Medina inviting them to Islam. They refused to accept Islam, but, on their own accord, offered peace on the following terms:-

a) They would give half of their land to the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the other half remaining in their possession.

b) They would work on the land of the Prophet (PBUH), sharing in its produce.

c) The Holy Prophet (PBUH) would have the authority to turn them out of Fadak whenever he so wished, but he would have to pay the full price of their share of land and property.

The Prophet (PBUH) accepted these terms. Some Muslims thought that Fadak also was Muslim property, like Khaibar. But it was their misunderstanding, because long before that, in the case of Banu Nazir, the law was promulgated that whatever comes to the Prophet without military expedition, was the Prophet’s personal property, for him to use or divide as he thought appropriate, as the Qur’an says:

“And whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from them, you did not press forward against it any horse or a riding camel but Allah gives authority to His Messengers over whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things.” (Qur’an, 59:6)

Banu Nazir was banished from Medina at the beginning of the 3rd year of hijrah. They were allowed to take whatever their camels could carry except arms.

On arriving at Medina, the Prophet (PBUH) had created fraternal relationships, making a muhajir brother of an Ansari; and every Ansari shared all his property half and a half with his muhajir brother; so much so that if an Ansari's inheritance was divided among his brothers and sisters, the muhajir “brother” was included in it.

Abu Bakr was made the brother of Kharijah bin Zayd; ‘Umar and ‘Utban bin Malik Ansari were made brothers, as were ‘Uthman and Aws bin Thabit Ansari; and so on. Only ‘Ali was left out of this fraternity, the Prophet (PBUH) declaring that ‘Ali was the brother of the Prophet (PBUH) himself.

On acquiring the property of Banu Nazir, the Prophet (PBUH) on his own decided to divide it among the muhajirin and release Ansar from this burden. He did so and included two extremely poor Ansar in the list — Abu Dajjanah and Sahl ibn Haneef.

So all muhajirin, including Abu Bakar, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, got their shares from that land and it became their personal property. It was not for their “maintenance” only.

In the same way, Fadak became a personal property of the Prophet(PBUH); and he managed it himself.

Then another verse came: “And give to the near of kin his due …” (Qur’an, 17:26).

The Prophet (PBUH) asked Jibreel (Gabriel) the meaning of this revelation. He said: Give Fadak to your daughter Fatimah; it will be a source of income to her and her children.

The Prophet (PBUH) gave Fadak to lady Fatimah (saw), and she was using it as her own property; her agent was there to look after her interests. This continued till the Prophet died and Abu Bakr took possession of Fadak by force.

Now lady Fatimah (saw) protested against this usurpation of her property, saying that the Prophet had given it to her. Abu Bakr asked her to produce witnesses to prove it.

Now lady Fatimah was already in possession of the property; and according to the Islamic principles, possession itself is sufficient proof of ownership. If Abu Bakr claimed that property for himself or for the Muslim nation, then it was he, as claimant, who should have produced witnesses to support his claim. But he put the onus of proof on lady Fatimah, disregarding Islamic Law.

Again, as he was a claimant, he should not have judged the case himself. But he did not care for judicial niceties so long as his purpose was served.

Anyhow, lady Fatimah (saw) brought ‘Ali (as) and Umm Ayman (widow of Zaid b. Haritha). Abu Bakr said that there should be either two males or one male and two female witnesses.

Now in family matters- and the gift of a father to his daughter is a family matter — only one witness is enough, but Abu Bakr conveniently forgot it. Also, Islam accepts one witness coupled with the oath of the claimant as sufficient proof.

Lady Fatimah (saw) was obliged to bring other witnesses, among them her two sons, Hassan and Hussain, and one woman, Asma’ d/o ‘Umais (wife of Abu Bakr himself).

Now there were more witnesses than the minimum required. So Abu Bakr started discrediting all the witnesses:-

A) ‘Ali, Hasan and Husain were Fatimah’s husband and sons, and they were liable to be moved by self-interest.

Remember that Fatimah (saw), ‘Ali, Hassan and Hussain were the only ones who were selected by the Prophet (PBUH) to prove his truth against the Christians of Najran — who were to say ‘’Amen’’ to the prayer of the prophet seeking curse of Allah “against the liars:’

They were the only people alive at that time who were purified by Allah from all sins and mistakes.

And there is not a single Muslim in the world who can say that they could tell lies.

But Abu Bakr rejected their evidence explicitly saying that their evidence was motivated by self-interest — in other words, they were lying!!

B) Asma’ d/o ‘Umais was previously married to Ja’far, brother of ‘Ali; and therefore, she would support the claim of Banu Hashim.

He forgot that she was his wife and therefore her evidence against his views was more telling.

And, by the way, is it necessary that a witness should not be a friend of the party for whom he is appearing — that only the evidence given by an enemy should be accepted?

C) Umm Ayman was a non-Arab and she could not speak Arabic fluently. (Umm Ayman was a slave-girl of ‘Abdullah, father of the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) had inherited her, married her to Zaid bin Haritha and, according to the Prophet (PBUH) she was one of “the people of virtue’: “people of Paradise’:)

Does it mean that only Arabic-speaking people can be accepted as witness? Or only Arabs are truthful and trustworthy?

This ruthlessness of the caliph prevented others to come forward and give evidence on behalf of Fatimah (saw). When the caliph had no hesitation in degrading and insulting ‘Ali and his sons, how could they be sure that their honor would not be tarnished if they appeared to support Fatimah (saw)?

The purpose of a witness is to establish the veracity or otherwise of a claim. If one is satisfied with the truth of a claim, the number of witnesses becomes a mere formality, which in some cases was dispensed with even by Abu Bakr. Jabir b. ‘Abdullah Ansari, a companion of the Prophet (PBUH), claimed that the Prophet (PBUH) had promised him so much from the revenue of Bahrain. Abu Bakr accepted the claim without asking for any witness.

Anyhow, when Fatimah (saw) that Abu Bakr was bent upon taking away Fadak from her, she said that, if not by gift, then Fadak was hers by inheritance.

Now, Abu Bakr came with an ingenious reply. He said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah saying.”We, the group of the prophets, are not inherited from; whatever we leave is ‘Sadaqah’ (charity):’

Now, this supposed saying of the Prophet (PBUH) is against many ‘verses of Qur’an and all the accepted principles of Islam, as Fatimah (saw) herself pointed out in her address, in which she says:-

‘’And now you hold out falsely that I have no inheritance from my father. Do you want the custom of (the days of) ignorance? And who is better than Allah, in giving the Law, for the people who do believe? Don’t you Know? Surely, it is clear for you like the midday sun that I am his daughter. Would I have prevailed over my inheritance? O Son of Abu Qahafa! Is it in the book of Allah that thou should inherit from thy father, and I would not inherit my father? Surely, thou hast brought a slanderous thing.

Is it intentional that you have discarded the Book of Allah and thrown it behind your backs? As Allah says: ‘And Sulaiman inherited Dawud, and he said narrating the advent of Yahya b. Zakariya: (When called he, i.e., Zakariya his Lord …, when he said ‘O my Lord! Verily my bones are weakened and my head does glisten with grey hoariness …, and verily I fear my kindred after me, and my wife is barren, so grant me from Thyself an heir who shall inherit me and inherit from the family of Yaqub ….”; and He said ‘ … and the relatives of blood have more right upon each other in the book of Allah’ and He said: “Allah enjoins you about your children, the male shall have the equal of the shares of two females.”; and He said: “(It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you) if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest or parents and the (near) kinsmen, in goodness; (it is) a duty incumbent upon the pious ones.”

“And you hold out falsely that there is no right for me nor any inheritance for me from my father. Well, has Allah sent any ‘Ayat especially for you, and from which my father was excluded? Or do you say that people of two different religions do not inherit from each other? Are not my father and I people of one religion? Or are you more knowledgeable of the particularity and generality of the Qur’an than my father and my cousin (‘Ali)?”

These arguments were and are irrefutable, but the caliph did not pay any heed to them. Here one must mention a few points before going further:

The supposed tradition was against so many verses of the Qur’an (some of which have been mentioned just above): Now we have a universally accepted hadith of the Prophet that ‘Verily, there have appeared many who tell lies attributing them to me; so when a narration attributed to me comes to you, refer it to the Book of Allah; and what is in conformity with the Book of Allah, accept it and what is against it, throw it up on the wall:’ Therefore, that hadith must be thrown to the wall.

Abu Bakr was the claimant, and he produced a hadith which up to that time no companion of the Prophet had ever heard. As he was so fond of formalities and procedures, why did not he produce two male witnesses to vouch for his narration?

Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that it was a genuine hadith.

Now, who should have been informed of it by the Prophet (PBUH), his would-be heirs (daughter, wives, uncle, cousin, etc), or a stranger who could never think of inheriting anything from the Prophet? Common sense says that it was the family members who should have been told by the Prophet that “Look, when I die, all that I leave shall become charity; you will not inherit anything because I am a Prophet (PBUH) and prophets are not inherited from.

So, be careful to give all my worldly belongings to Sadaqah:’ How was it that he did not tell any of his would-be heirs and told it to Abu Bakr, who had no claim in his inheritance? Why did he keep his daughter, wives, and uncle in dark, thus starting a bitter quarrel between Khalifa and his family members?

Even when lady Fatimah’s (saw)claim was rejected with the help of this ready-made hadith, the wives of the Prophet sent ‘Uthman to Abu Bakr asking their shares in the inheritance of the Prophet in Khyber. It clearly shows that the wives of the Prophet did not believe that hadith, nor was it believed by ‘Uthman (who later became 3rd caliph); otherwise; he would not have taken that message to Abu Bakr.

One may wonder why Abu Bakr did not accept the valid and irrefutable arguments of Fatimah (saw)? Apparently, it could have done him no harm if he had accepted the claim of Fatimah (saw).

The first and basic cause has been mentioned by Ibn Abil Hadid in his Sharh of Nahjul-Balaghah:-

“I asked Ali b. Fariqi, a teacher in Madrasa Gharbiyah at Baghdad, ‘Was not Fatima (saw) most truthful?’ He said, ‘Certainly!: I said: ‘Then why did not Abu Bakr return Fadak to her when he knew that she was most truthful?’

The teacher smiled and said: ‘Had he given her Fadak today just because of her claim, she would have returned next day and claimed Khalifat for her husband, and removed him from his position; and then he would have had no excuse, because he had already accepted that she was most truthful in her claim, whatever it may be, without any need of proof or witnesses:’

This much about not returning the property. But why did they usurp it in the first place? Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) told his disciple, Mufaddal b. ‘Umar: “When Abu Bakr became Khalifa, ‘Umar advised him to deprive ‘Ali and his family from Khumus, booty, and Fadak, “because when his partisans will know it, they will leave him and will turn towards you, for material gains:’ It was for this reason that Abu Bakr deprived them of all their rights:’It is interesting to note that Fadak had the same legal position as the land of Banu Nazir which was given to the muhajirin (including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar themselves). But while Fadak was taken away from Fatimah, muhajirin’s properties were not touched.

Be as it may. The high-handedness used in this case totally negated the two legacies which the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had left behind for the guidance of his ummah: He had repeatedly said in his sermons: I am leaving among you two weighty things, the Book of Allah and my family members who are my progeny; as long as you will hold fast to them you will not go astray, and they will not separate from each other until they reach me at the reservoir (Kawthar).

But Abu Bakr and ‘Umar destroyed the credibility of both.

They degraded the Progeny of the Prophet (PBUH) in the public eyes. People witnessed that in spite of all the verses of the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet extolling the virtues of ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain, they had less weight in the eyes of the Khalifa than many ordinary companions of the Prophet, like Jabir b. ‘Abdillah and Khuzaima b. Thabit.

They destroyed the sanctity and supremacy of the Qur’an, making it subservient to the rulers’ expediencies; a system was established that the caliphs’ words could change/abrogate clear rules of the Qur’an.

In this way, they deprived the ummah of the guidance of the Qur’an and Ahlul Bayt forever, and the two safeguards against going astray were destroyed.

It was because of this intentional discarding of the two weighty things, Ahlul Bayt and Qur’an, in process of which the laws of inheritance, jurisprudence, and evidence were corrupted, that lady Fatimah (saw) was extremely angry with these two persons. Bukhari and Muslim have narrated: “Verily Abu Bakr refused to give anything to lady Fatimah (saw), so she was angry with him about this matter, and she forsook him and did not talk with him till her death:’

(This blog is a collaboration with scholars and historians regarding references and claims)

Disclaimer: ( The blog isn’t aimed at to target/malign any sect, or harm the feelings of any faction, This is also to certify/ensure that no blasphemy has been committed and intended while writing this, as this is a historic event that is narrated with all the references and claims which can be substantiated through history books).

The context in which this verse was revealed was one of inter-religious encounter. It is said that the Christians of Najran sent a delegation to the Prophet of Islam (s) Muhammad at Mecca to question him about the teachings of Islam concerning Jesus (‘a), and God revealed the above and other verses of Surat Al ‘Imran in response. The response is not only not a denial of Christian teachings, although the divinity of Christ is clearly rejected, but also an affirmation of much believed by Christians as well, even the designation of Christ as logos: ‘O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your creed, and do not say of Allah but the Truth.

Verily, the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So in addition to being called the Word of God, Jesus (‘a) is also called a Spirit of God and in some of the narrations reported in the Shi’i tradition, this title is used. Of course, the interpretation of the logos in Christian theology differs markedly from the interpretation of the kalimah by Muslim scholars. For the Christian, according to the Gospel of John, the Word was God and the Word became flesh.’ For the Muslim, on the other hand, the Word is creature, even while it is the creative principle, for it is in God’s utterance of the word ‘Be’. That creation takes place.

To call Christ ‘the Word of Allah’ is not to deifying him, but to verify his status as prophet. Because of his high status as prophet, Jesus (‘a) becomes a complete manifestation of God, one who conveys the message of God, one who can speak on behalf of God, the Word of God Jesus (‘a) becomes the Word of God not because of an incarnation whereby his flesh becomes divine, but because his spirit is refined to such an extent that it becomes a mirror whereby divinity comes to be known. The temple is holy not because of any inherent sanctity in the structure, but because it is the place of the worship of God. The differences between Islamic and Christian thinking about Jesus (‘a) are as important as they are subtle.

Both accept the virgin birth, although it is ironic that a growing number of liberal Christians have come to have doubts about this miracle while Muslims remain steadfast! Among the other miracles attributed to Jesus (‘a) in the Glorious Qur’an are the revival of the dead and the creation of a bird from clay, but all of the miracles performed by Jesus (‘a) are expressly by the permission of Allah.

Just as in the miracle of his birth, Jesus (‘a) came into the world by a human mother and divine spirit, so too, his miracles are performed as human actions with divine permission. In this regard the error of the Christians is explained by Ibn ‘Arabi as follows: This matter has led certain people to speak of incarnation and to say that, in reviving the dead, he is God. Therefore, since they conceal God, Who in reality revives the dead, in the human form of Jesus, He has said, They are concealers [unbelievers] who say that God is the Messiah, son of Mary.

The point is that one can find God in Jesus (‘a) without deifying him, and furthermore that deifying Jesus (‘a) is really an obstacle to finding God in Jesus (‘a), for in the deification one ceases to look in Jesus (‘a) for anything beyond him. It is as if one were to become distracted from a message by focusing one’s attention on the words through which it was conveyed.

To the above point it may be added that not only does the doctrine of the incarnation prevent one from finding God in Christ (‘a), but it also prevents one from seeing Christ (‘a) the man, because his imagined divinity gets in the way. One of the central questions of Christian theology is: Who was Jesus Christ? The formulation of answers to this question is called Christology. In this area of theology, Christians have debated the significance of the historical Jesus as opposed to the picture of Jesus presented in the traditions of the Christian Churches and the Biblical understanding of Jesus.

The time has come for the Muslims to begin work in this area, as well. Through the development of an Islamic Christology, we can come to a better understanding of Islam as contrasted with Christianity and Islam in consonance with Christianity, too. Indeed, the first steps in this direction are laid out for us in the Qur’an itself, in the verses mentioned above and others. Contemporary work toward an Islamic Christology is scarce. Christian authors have tended to stress the salvific function of Jesus (‘a) which seems to have no place in Islam, and given this, the Christians ask one another whether Christ (‘a) can be the savior of Muslims and others who are not Christians.

Christians should be reminded that Muslims accept Jesus (‘a) as savior, along with all the other prophets, for the prophetic function is to save humanity from the scourge of sin by conveying the message of guidance revealed by God. The important difference between Islam and Christianity here is not over the issue of whether Jesus (‘a) saves, but how he saves. Islam denies that salvation is through redemption resulting from the crucifixion, and instead turns its attention to the instruction provided in the life of the prophets (‘a). Therefore, if you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and strive to become a righteous man you will be saved. Concluding this, I wish happy Christmas to all the followers of Jesus Christ and urge a logical and meaningful debate on such issues which can bring the people together for a peaceful and better world.

The killing of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has once again fueled hostilities in the Middle East when Iran needs to restore diplomacy with the United States and particularly with the newly elected Biden administration to gain sanctions relief and salvage its economy but is also looking for ways to dissuade its enemies.

Fakhrizadeh died after an elaborately planned ambush on Friday on the outskirts of Tehran. Ali Shamkhani, the Secretary of the Country’s Supreme National Security Council, accused Israel on Monday of using “electronic devices” in the attack.

Israel is widely agreed to be the most likely perpetrator. On Tuesday, the Iranian Majles approved a bill calling for the suspension of nuclear inspections and a resumption of nuclear enrichment unless European states gave Tehran sanctions relief. Though only the US has reimposed sanctions following withdrawal from the nuclear deal, others have been wary of investing in Iran, afraid to draw American ire. This has had a debilitating effect on the Iranian economy.

Currently, Iran is no doubt under immense pressure due to the crippling sanctions, and the murder of its scientist is a grave provocation, the Iranian leadership must be mulling over to react with caution and realism. The suspension of inspections will only give Iran’s foes the chance to further implicate Tehran, accusing it of seeking a confrontation with the international community. Israel has long been believed to be running a covert operation to assassinate key Iranian officials, while some news outlets have reported that Mr Trump — in his final few months in office — has allowed his administration to ramp up the pressure even more on Iran, with some suggesting the American president has given the green light for everything short of war. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Israeli hit targeting Fakhrizadeh had America’s blessing.

Fakhrizadeh was to Iran’s nuclear program what Suleimani was to its proxy network. The most important question is whether Iran follows the same approach it adopted after the assassination of Qasim Sulemani or not. The Trump administration has time and again tried to test Iran’s patience and capabilities in a bid to create an impression that Iran is bent upon hostilities to ignite a regional conflict and is a threat to the regional peace. Considering this incendiary situation, Iran must not take the bait and fall into a trap that can drag the entire region into a devastating conflict. On the other hand, Biden has also said that he wants to go back to the nuclear deal. If he is serious about mending fences he should send strong signals to Iran for regional peace.

Meanwhile, if the Biden administration also decides to further tighten the screws on Iran, it will clearly be disastrous as those who have seen Iran’s determination and hard line foreign policy will access that Iran will not cow down. The Iranian regime will get strong public backing against the United States’ harsh response. But most of all, until the presidential change is complete wiser minds within the US establishment should ensure that an unnecessary confrontation with Iran is avoided and that Israel’s provocative behavior is kept in check to prevent a powerful clash. Can Tehran continue to hold its nerve? Yes! It can be inferred that Iran will not take the bait to observe the regional reaction and will wait for the Biden administration to take up this matter for a clear policy statement. A retaliatory strike could make it even harder for a Biden administration to negotiate the multifaceted steps.

The story of Zahhak begins with that of Jamshid, a legendary king who had led Iran magnanimously for 700 years and brought about peace and justice, civilization, sanitation and health, arts and splendor, joy and prosperity, by the grace of God during his reign. But his success eventually led to pride and arrogance. He thus demanded to be recognized not only as the ruler of the world, but its creator. The arrogance marked his downfall as God withdrew the farr, or divinely granted royal grace, fortune, and wisdom granted to Jamshid. Jamshid’s fortune declined until Zahhak appeared.

Zahhak was deceived by Ahriman (Satan) to kill his father Merdas, an Arab nobleman, to acquire his fortune and power. Ahriman assisted by digging a pit and covering it with leaves and branches in the garden where Merdes took a walk and prayed at dawn every morning. Merdes fell in the pit and died. Zahhak became the ruler. Ahriman appeared as a cook and presented Zahhak, the new ruler, for three days with marvelous spreads of delicious, colorful dishes made of birds and animals. On the fourth day, Zahhak, pleased with the cook, told him to ask for anything he desired. Having waited for the opportunity, Ahriman replied that he wished nothing but Zahhak’s happiness, and would be overjoyed if he was allowed to kiss the king’s shoulders. Permission granted, Ahriman kissed Zahhak’s shoulders and disappeared. Two black snakes appeared where Ahriman’s lips had touched. The snakes could not be removed, as new ones would replace them as soon as they were cut off. All physicians and healers in the realm proved powerless to deal with the snakes.

Ahriman appeared in court as a skilled physician and prescribed a young human brain to be fed daily to each snake to keep Zahhak safe from them. Ahriman, hateful of human happiness, had prescribed murdering all mankind. At the time when Jamshid lost his divine farr, Zahhak took the opportunity to attack Iran. Jamshid was defeated, escaped, and remained in hiding for a 100 years. He was finally caught and on Zahhak’s order cut in half. Zahhak claimed Jamshid’s throne.

“I have built a high palace that will never disappear. No rain, no wind will destroy it.”

He ruled as an evil tyrant for years and killed many innocent young people to satisfy the snakes. One night, he dreamed that three warriors attacked, bound, and dragged him to Mount Damavand near Tehran. The dream terrified Zahhak and he consulted many wise men to interpret the dream.

A brave one finally interpreted that Zahhak’s days were numbered, and a new king, Feraydun, would overthrow him. In the meantime, Kaveh the blacksmith marched into Zahhak’s palace one day to protest loudly the arrest of his eighth son to be killed as were the previous seven to satisfy the demonic snakes. Taken aback at Kaveh’s fearlessness, Zahhak ordered Kaveh’s son be released, but asked Kaveh to recognize the king’s royal generosity, justice, and benevolence by signing a document already signed by the leaders of the land. Kaveh tore up the document in rage upon reading it and scolded the stunned cowardly courtiers serving a demonic tyrant. Kaveh stormed out of the court with his son, hoisted his leather apron on a lance, and called upon people to join together to remove the tyrant.

People listened and thus began Kaveh’s revolution, and his apron became the legendary national banner (Drafsh­e Kaviani). A brave young man named Feraydun whose father had been killed by Zahhak, a descendant of the Persian King Tahmures, had already risen to avenge his father. Kaveh, his son, and his followers joined the noble young man as their king, as they recognized the sun­like splendor of divine farr in him. They rode for days and crossed Arvand Rude (Arvand River, now between Iran and Iraq, flowing into the Persian Gulf) to reach Zahhak’s capital.

They conquered the town and the palace and freed prisoners, but Zahhak and his army were away. When informed that his palace had been occupied, Zahhak and his great army rode to the capital, but were attacked by inhabitants from all corners. He was finally subdued by a blow to the head by Fareydun, with Kaveh and his son beside him (as Zahhak had dreamed, that three men would arrest him as the youngest delivers him the immobilizing blow). He was bound and taken to a cave under Mount Damavand, where he was imprisoned in chains. Fareydun thereafter proceeded to erase all traces of Zahhak’s tyranny.

“I turn to right and left, in all the earth
I see no signs of justice, sense or worth:
A man does evil deeds, and all his days
Are filled with luck and universal praise;
Another’s good in all he does — he dies
A wretched, broken man whom all despise.” The Book of Kings by Fridousi

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tiger Tiger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

His marriages were not for pleasure, but were a humanitarian means to further the cause of Islam, as is evident from the women he married. In the case of Sawda, Umm Salama, and Zainab bint Khuzaima, it was to take care of poor and helpless widows well in their middle-ages, while the marriage to Juwairiyah was to grant her freedom from captivity.

Still others such as those to Umm Habiba, Safiya, A’isha, Hafsa, and Maimoona were meant for uniting some prominent Arab tribes, who were often at loggerheads with each other, and also to safeguard the internal political status of the new-found Islamic State. And the marriage to Zainab bint Jahsh was for the sake of enacting a new law because she was the divorced.

As the Holy Qur’an testifies, the Prophet married her to put an end to the then prevalent belief that adopted sons were like real sons and that wives or widows of adopted sons were like daughters-in-law. In short, the philosophy behind his marriages was entirely revolutionary and ushered in positive changes in ignorant Arabia.

He was an affectionate father and his only surviving child, daughter Fatimah (a), was dearer to him than life. His famous Hadith: “Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever annoys her (in fact) annoys me,” stands as a firm testimony to this fact. History is a witness that he used to stand up to greet his daughter. Many prominent and wealthy Arabs had approached him for Fatimah’s hand, but he politely refused them, and according to divine commandment married her to his faithful cousin, Ali (a).

Hence Fatimah and Ali were the parents of his two grandsons Hassan and Hussain; through whom the continuity of the Prophet’s noble progeny has been ensured. Hassan and Hussain were the apples of his eyes and he affectionately doted on them. They used to play with him and accompany him to the mosque. Once when the two grandsons were seated on his shoulders, a companion remarked: “What an excellent mount.” to which the Prophet retorted: “What excellent riders too.”

Thus, Prophet Muhammad’s (S) behavior with his illustrious household is a lesson for us. It was not blind love of a doting father or grandfather as some may misinterpret but was something divinely ordained as is clear from several verses of the Holy Qur’an. Therefore, it is obligatory for all Muslims to love and respect his chosen family, and adhere to their radiant path, which is the only way to save the Ummah from pitfalls.

Apart from these great life-changing rules and practices he was a great and visionary political leader. In 6 AH, the Holy Prophet of Islam dispatched several representatives to rulers and kings of different parts of the world, each with a letter in which he invited them to become Muslims and submit to God. All these letters had the same purport, that is, the invitation to monotheism and Islamic fraternity.

Since the Holy Prophet’s mission was divine, in obedience to God’s command, consistent with human nature, and meant to lead people to God’s path, it highly impressed such just, truth-seeking people as Najashi, Muquqs, and others, so they submitted to Islam. Research made on the collection of the Prophet’s letters indicates that he sent 62 letters to kings, chiefs of tribes and clans, and heads of convents. The texts of 29 of these letters are available. Let’s take a look at some of these letters.

A letter to Khusrow, The King of Iran

The holy prophet peace be upon him writes,

“In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate

From Muhammad, God’s Messenger, to Khusrow, the King of Persia. Greetings to the followers of the right path, to those obedient to God and His Prophet, to those who bear witness to God’s Oneness, who worship the One God, and who bear witness to the prophecy of God’s servant, Muhammad.

Truly I call upon you to obey God’s command and convert to Islam. I am God’s Messenger to all the people so that living hearts will be awakened and illuminated and so that infidels will have no excuses. Submit to Islam so you will be safe and immune, and if you disobey me and turn down my invitation, you will be blamed for the sins of the magi.’

A Letter to Harqal, The King Of Rome

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate.

..I call upon you to submit to Islam. If you become a Muslim, you will share the Muslims’ gains and their losses, and if you do not want to become a Muslim yourself, then let your people freely convert to Islam or pay the poll tax, paid in lieu of conversion to Islam, and do not restrict them in choosing their faith.”

A letter to The Ruler Of Yamamah

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate

This is a letter from God’s Messenger, Muhammad to Hawzah. Greetings to the one who follows the path of salvation and the instructions of the divine. The ruler of Yamamah, note that my faith will advance to the farthest place where a man can go, so submit to Islam to be immune.”

A letter to the Jews

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate, this is a letter from Muhammad, God’s Messenger, Musa ibn `Imran’s brother and co-missionary. God has assigned to Muhammad the same mission, he had assigned to Moses. I swear to you by God and by the sacred commands descended upon Moses on Mount Sinai that: Have you found in your Holy Book predictions of my prophetic mission to the Jewish community as well as to all other peoples? If you have found this, then fear God and convert to Islam, and if you have not found such a divine prediction, then you will be excused.’”

A letter to Bishop Najran

In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate this is a letter from God’s prophet Muhammad to Bishop Najran: Truly I call on you to worship the real adored God instead of worshipping God’s creatures. Our Duty Is To Convey The Message Of Islam.

The speedy advance and promulgation of Islam were due to the sincere, indefatigable endeavors of our Holy Prophet more than anything else.

In the propagation of Islam, the Holy Prophet utilized two powerful, effective forces: one, proficient speakers who had realized the truth and righteousness of Islam and who deeply loved and admired the Holy Prophet of Islam, and, two, the amazingly impressive letters, which revealed the vivifying precepts of Islam and which, in reality, were crystal clear reflections of Islam. He sent his messengers to different parts of the world although there were many hardships in their way and the needed means and facilities were scarce or unavailable.

After winning the war, when the prisoners of the battle of Badr were brought forth, the Messenger of God divided them amongst his companions and said: ‘Treat the prisoners well. The Messenger of God took 70 prisoners on the day of Badr and ransomed them according to their wealth. Generally the people of Mecca were literate and the people of Medina were not. Whoever did not have any ransom money, sent him 10 youth from Medina so that he could teach them [to read and write instead]. Mukraz son of Hafs arrived to pay the ransom of Suheil son of Amr who had been taken prisoner by Malik son of al-Dakhsham. He was ransomed for 4000 Dirhams.

Ibn Ishaq mentions one of the companions as saying: ‘O Messenger of God, let me tear out the incisors of Suheil son Amr so that his tongue will roll out and he will not be able to make speeches against you anywhere ever again.’ The Prophet said: ‘I will not have him mutilated, for God would then mutilate me even though I am a Prophet.’

When the Messenger of God first entered Medina after migration from Makkah, he made a peace treaty with the Bani Nadeer tribe as he did with the rest of the Jewish tribes on condition that they do not fight him nor fight with him and he accepted these terms from them. When the Messenger of God fought at Badr and defeated the Polytheists they said: ‘By God, he certainly is the Prophet whom we find described in the Torah.’

After conquering Makkah without even shedding a single drop pf blood, the Apostle of God began his speech by praising and extolling God, and said: ‘There is no deity but God, no partner has He. He fulfilled His promise and aided His servant and He alone defeated the confederates.’

Then he said: ‘Every great deed, or wealth, or claim of blood, or foul deed or feud that existed in the Age of Ignorance are beneath my two feet now. As for the custodianship of the House and the task of watering of the pilgrims, they are returned to their rightful owners. Mecca is sacred by the sanctification of God. None other before me has been allowed free reign therein, and I have only been allowed free reign for a short time on one day. Mecca is sacred until the final hour comes. Trees therein are not to be cut and animals are not to be hunted . . .’

Then he said: ‘O people, let those present inform those who are absent that with Islam, God has taken away the arrogance of the illiteracy and ignorance, and the boasting about lineage and tribe. All of you are from Adam and Adam is from clay.’

Then he recited the Qur’anic verse: O people, we have created you of male and female and made of you peoples and tribes so that you might know one another. Surely the most noble amongst you in the sight of God is the most pious.

Then he said: ‘The best of the servants of God are those who fear God. Arabic is not a father and sire but is a tongue which speaks and if a person’s actions do him down, his lineage will not save him.’

Then he turned to the people of Mecca and said: ‘What foul neighbours to a Prophet you were. You belied and expelled and tortured [me and my followers]. Then you were not satisfied until you came to my lands to fight me. Now, O people of the Quraysh, what do you say? What do you think I shall do with you?

People of Makkah said: ‘We think only good and we say only good. You are a noble brother and the son of a noble brother and you have defeated us.’ The Prophet said: ‘I will say to you what Joseph (peace be upon him) said to his brothers: There is no blame upon you this day, God will forgive you and He is the Most Merciful, Go for ye are at liberty.’

The people left as if they had been raised from their graves, and entered into Islam. God had put the people of Mecca under the Apostle of God’s power but because he freed them, the people of Mecca were to become known as the Tulaqa’ or “those who have been freed”. The glorious life of the holy prophet (PBUH) teaches us virtues, humanity and the righteous path.

So it is incumbent upon us to mobilize all our forces and powers to promote the cause of Islam and to spare no effort or self-sacrifice in the propagation of this holy faith, so our eastern and western brothers and sisters in Islam may be led to this vivifying fountain of truth. It will be a great achievement for us to have the honor of such an invaluable service to Islam and humanity in general.

Just as our Holy Prophet said to ‘Ali, ‘I swear by God that if God leads a person towards salvation through you, it will be more valuable and beneficial to you than the value of all the beings in the whole world upon which the sun casts its rays’.

Our society could never be perfect and peaceful unless we sincerely tread the footsteps of God’s final Messenger to mankind, heed his sayings, observe his glorious actions and attitudes, and most important of all follow them, as the faithful among his companions did. God has given you an enlightened soul and reason, so instead of listening to your political leaders and our twisted mullahs, Google his holy name and read more about him, and I swear you will find him the perfect man God has ever created, a man who sacrificed his life and his entire family for the sake of humanity and peace.

Islam emerged like a limpid fountain and increased in depth and expanse as time went by. It finally became a great river passing through various human societies, irrigating fields in which seeds of humanity were to be planted, satisfying the thirst of human beings for salvation and justice. It is going on and will surely continue to do so as long as there are human beings on earth because human nature is thirsty for this heavenly faith and would perish if it were denied it.

Obviously, Islam does not please those who oppress the colonialists, the arrogant, and their like. So they have always tried hard to hinder it, but in spite of so many wicked policies and plots of the world-exploiters and despite the serious attempts of the enemies of Islam to misrepresent this holy faith, Islam has prevailed.

It goes without saying that all laws and precepts in the holy faith of Islam have been made based on human nature, which is the same in all human societies and at all times. So those who say, `East is east and west is west’ and `An eastern Prophet cannot be a good leader for western people’, are absolutely wrong. For human beings, whether of the east or the west, have their nature, their natural character­istics, and their wants in common.

There is no difference between people in this respect, no matter how different their race, color, traditions, geographical conditions, and the like maybe. And just as eastern people need an innate faith — a faith compatible with their nature and capable of satisfying their various human needs — western people require such a divine faith, exactly to the same extent. A simple comparison can serve to clarify the matter. Human beings all over the world and at all times need food, water, and oxygen to survive, and no human is being found without a need for them for his survival. Just so, all of them need spiritual nourishment for their souls, their emotional health, their spiritual survival, and, most significant of all, their finding salvation.

It is crystal clear that when the Holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (PBUH) illuminated the dark atmosphere of Makkah with the call of monotheism, he did not mean to lead just the people of the Hijaz or the Arabs, but his divine mission was to communicate God’s message to the whole world and to start this momentous task from Arabia.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the finest example of a perfect man in every sense of the term. He was a paragon of virtue and is the best exemplar for the human race. The Almighty distinguished him from all and sundry by instilling in his sublime personality such fine qualities as modesty, truthfulness, kindness, patience, loyalty, honesty, courage, bravery, generosity, magnanimity, wisdom, and the like. By studying his lofty character and the amazingly simple life he led with his household, companions, wives, and others, we are apt to learn valuable lessons from his conduct and accordingly mold our own lifestyle.

One proof of this true belief is that at the beginning of his mission, he said to his own relatives, `Truly, I am God’s Messenger to you, in particular, and to all people, in general…’.

There are also some verses in the Qur’an that confirm this claim. Consider the following three verses:

`Say, O people, surely I am God’s Messenger to you all”’ (7:158).

`And we have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds’ (21:107).

`And this Qur’an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches’ (6:19).

Such verses reveal the fact that the divine mission of the Holy Prophet was not revised to become universal after his migration to Medina and the prevalence of Islam. From the very beginning, his holy mission was meant for all people, for all parts of the world, and for all times.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) always used to contemplate the greatness and majesty of God, the glorious and the welfare of the human race. He closely followed the affairs of his people and the spreading of the light of Islam. He talked only when necessary and when he did, his speech was devoid of any rhetoric and unnecessary words. It was precise, to the point, and full of great meanings.

He was punctual, active and energetic, and led an orderly life in the strict sense of the word. He gave some important tips to the people.

“Blessed be my people for their early rising.”

“Too much sleep does away with both religion and the world.”

“O People, you have certain (special) characteristics, so get to (emphasize) them and you have an end, so get to (be prepared for) it…, a servant of Allah should take (make provisions) for himself from his self: from his world (life) for his hereafter, during his youth before his old age, and in life before death. By the One in whose hand is Muhammad’s soul, after death, there will be no blaming and after this world, there is nothing except Paradise or Hell.

He was the finest embodiment of modesty, and deeply abhorred arrogance and haughtiness. Almost all of his companions in the early days were poor and oppressed people, as he was the champion of the downtrodden and the defender of the deprived masses.

His house was simple and modest, built of clay bricks, palm leaves, and trunks. His food was simple like that of the poor, consisting mostly of barley bread. There were occasions when he might skip that meager meal too. He socialized with his companions as one of them: talking, listening, smiling, and displaying a sense of humor. Sometimes he might join in their laughter to cheer their spirits up. He would visit them when they fell sick or accept an invitation for a meal irrespective of whether the person concerned was poor, a slave, or any other. In case a companion of his died, he used to participate in the funeral procession, walking alongside the bier.

So modest was he that he hated to see people rising to their feet when he entered an assembly. And on entering he used to sit at the nearest vacant spot, so that his companions might not think that he was sporting an air of superiority over them. His magnetic personality drew love and respect from all. He used to sit on the ground, even while eating and slept on the ground with a simple mat serving as his bed. He greeted even small boys, as well as women. If some man shook hands with him, he would not unclasp his hand till the other did it first.

Once, a Christian chieftain named Adi bin Hatim al-Ta’i, came for an audience with the Prophet of Islam, who happened to be sitting on a cushion. On seeing the visitor he took the cushion from underneath and offered it to his Christian guest, himself preferring to sit on the ground. This admirable display of modesty by the great Prophet so deeply affected Adi bin Hatim al-Ta’i, that the Christian chief immediately embraced Islam.

This is how Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) taught us the best of morals and excellent manners. By living a simple and ordinary life and treating everybody alike with courtesy and respect, he was able to spread the light of Islam. His immaculate personality and lofty character, coupled with his honesty and wisdom, attracted multitudes of people towards truth and justice.

The Messenger’s social ties with his companions portray the most wonderful picture of Islamic brotherhood ever heard of. The following narratives give us a glimpse of his firm ties with the society in which he lived:

Anas bin Malik, who used to frequent the Prophet’s assembly, says that whenever the Prophet missed any one of his companions for a period of three days, he used to inquire about that person, would pray for him and if he happened to be ill, would visit him.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was second to none in Allah’s creation, beginning from Adam till eternity. He was an excellent exemplar of the noblest manners and merits including courage and bravery. His valor was a byword among his contemporaries, for he stood up gallantly against the heaviest odds, endured pain and injuries, and victoriously fought, overcame, and showed mercy to the stone-hearted infidels of ignorant Arabia. Magnanimity is the finest form of valor and the Prophet excelled in this particular field, forgiving enemies and freeing multitudes from injustice, oppression, servitude, and ignorance.

He endured pain and sufferings for thirteen long years in Makkah, inviting people to Islam, without once being over-awed by the sheer force and numbers of arrogant Jahiliyah. And all these single-handedly without any group or supporters except his few weak but devoted followers.

After migrating to Madina he organized an army to defend against the idolaters and he himself led the faithful in many a battle against overwhelming odds, always coming out victorious. The Battles of Badr, Khandaq, Uhud, Khaibar, Hunayn, and the conquest of Makkah were some of the epoch-making events.

(To be continued)

For this very reason, the significant portions of the agenda of the Prophets and divine Messengers include education and the enhancement of ethical considerations and well-adjusted conduct. These dignitaries, in accordance with the prevailing situations, have made use of either practical means and suitable behavior, or sermons and maxims, or treatises.

Ethics includes all human traits which are brought about either by heredity or environment and which make up one’s personality influencing one’s deeds, conducts thoughts, and speech. renowned scholar Raghib in his book Mufradat al-Quran says that the two terms “Khalq” (creation) and “Khulq” (human traits) are, in fact, identical; but the former refers to superficial configurations which are observable with naked eyes, whereas the latter refers to the internal powers and innate goodness which are only observable with the hearts.

Regarding this, the commander of faithful Imam ‘Ali has said, “Khulq refers to the soul, whereas Khalq refers to the body.” As the bodies are different among people; some are beautiful, and some are not beautiful, the souls are different as well; some are nice, others are inhuman. In the final analysis, the structure of the human body relies on the rules of creation, which are beyond humans to tamper with; whereas sour behaviors and traits are for the most part learned and are formed through hardships. Ibn Miskawayh in his book Taharat al-A’raq writes,” Khulq is one of the traits of human self which entices man to carry out his daily affairs without thinking. It is of two types: Some part of it is natural and rests on human nature. An example is when a man becomes furious over minor things or fears insignificant events or becomes happy or depressed.

The other part of it relies on our customs and practices. This part at first rested, no doubt, on thought but later, due to practice and repetition takes on a habitual status; then it works with no thought at all.” Thus, our physical traits are not considered as our ethical traits unless they have become constant.

For instance, a person does not acquire the trait of generosity by random acts of generosity; neither is he termed brave by just randomly engaging in brave actions. Thus traits take on the status of khulq only when they manifest themselves as constant, occurring without thought or consideration. But this does not contradict the optional nature of these traits since man is capable of either carrying them out or avoiding them as a whole, although it is hard to stop doing habitual things.

Furthermore, as it is proven elsewhere since from the beginning he could either form habits or abandons them, thus he has been free from the beginning to make the choices he likes. In order for a man to enjoy all his instincts and wishes to a logical degree, to live at peace with others, and to attain prosperity both here and in the hereafter, he has to observe ethical standards. The advancements and degeneration of human societies do not depend solely on sciences and material progress. Rather, it is the observation of these ethical standards which bring about either prosperity or fall of such societies.

The poet says: Ethics keeps the human race alive; a tribe of humanity that lacks ethics is doomed to die. Thus, ethics is a requirement for both statesmen and the Messengers of Allah. That is why, the magnificent Qur’an, after eleven oaths, emphasizes that: he who attains salvation is one who purifies his soul of ethical corruptions and the wretched is one who corrupts his soul. God says in the Quran, “He will indeed be successful who purifies it (the soul) and he will indeed fail who corrupts it”.